netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/4] tcp: ULP infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20170731221614.GB93172@dhcp-172-20-173-153.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date:   Mon, 31 Jul 2017 15:16:14 -0700
From:   Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>
To:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
CC:     Ilya Lesokhin <ilyal@...lanox.com>,
        Aviad Yehezkel <aviadye@...lanox.com>,
        Boris Pismenny <borisp@...lanox.com>,
        Liran Liss <liranl@...lanox.com>,
        Matan Barak <matanb@...lanox.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
        Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@...tls.org>,
        Fridolín Pokorný <fridolin.pokorny@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 1/4] tcp: ULP infrastructure

On 07/29/17 01:12 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com> wrote:
> > Add the infrustructure for attaching Upper Layer Protocols (ULPs) over TCP
> > sockets. Based on a similar infrastructure in tcp_cong.  The idea is that any
> > ULP can add its own logic by changing the TCP proto_ops structure to its own
> > methods.
> >
> > Example usage:
> >
> > setsockopt(sock, SOL_TCP, TCP_ULP, "tls", sizeof("tls"));
> >
> One question: is there a good reason why the ULP infrastructure should
> just be for TCP sockets. For example, I'd really like to be able
> something like:
> 
> setsockopt(sock, SOL_SOCKET, SO_ULP, &ulp_param, sizeof(ulp_param));
> 
> Where ulp_param is a structure containing the ULP name as well as some
> ULP specific parameters that are passed to init_ulp. ulp_init could
> determine whether the socket family is appropriate for the ULP being
> requested.

Using SOL_SOCKET instead seems reasonable to me.  I can see how
ulp_params could have some use, perhaps at a slight loss in clarity.
TLS needs its own setsockopts anyway though, for renegotiate for
example.